State of Washington approves gay marriage

In relation to my other post about gay marriage, I found an article that examines gay rights and equality for marriage. The article is about the State of Washington and how it just recently allowed gay marriage to take place. In one of our readings for class, Is gay Marriage Racist, it took a more bleak out look on the situation and eluted in some sections that there might not be room to move forward or change our country. But when states are continuing to change their policy that gives us some hope that eventually that all states with allow gay marriage, and not just the current 9. Then theres their worry about equal rights for gay marriages like in my last post, but again it just seems like a matter of time. How much time is hard to say.

Posted in News article/post/video | Tagged | Leave a comment

Supreme Court to Hear Two Cases on Same-Sex Marriage

The supreme court is going to hear two cases, but I thought on related very close to one of our readings. The case of The United States v. Windsor. Ms.Windsor had lost her partner and was given her wife land in the inheritance. The united states taxed the the land at $360,000 since they were a gay couple, something that wouldn’t happen if they had been a heterosexual couple.

In the reading from Stoddard we did in class, “Why gay people should seek the right to marry”, he spoke about how in the seventies, the government would not allow a gay couples will or inheritance to be valid, and saw it as a case of prostitution. I don’t think its fathomable that thats the view the courts hold today, but they still use the practice of hindering gay couple that are legally married.

Its unfortunate that gay couples don’t have the right to marry all across the united states, and even more unfortunate that the ones who can in certain states don’t have the same right as heterosexual couples, the logic just doesn’t  add up.

Posted in News article/post/video | Tagged | Leave a comment

Vagrancy laws and presnt day society

After reading the New York Times article entitled, “After Recession, More Young Adults Are Living on Street”, I couldn’t help but to think how the vagrancy laws, in some respect, may actually benefit society today, especially those that are part of the “lost generation”. The article basically discusses how thousands of people between the ages of 18 and 24 with college credits and/or work experience, also known as the “lost generation” have been left without a job and consequently a home because of the recession. It discusses how many have to settle for a job that requires them to lower their standards. It then goes on to discuss how others that do get jobs continue to experience layoffs, leaving them with no stability to pay for rent and other living expenses causing them to seek shelter. At which point they encounter another problem as there aren’t nearly enough shelters that have beds readily accessible for such a large population of unemployed individuals. The vagrancy laws, minus the punishments, may actually alleviate the stress that comes with what seems to be a never-ending battle of unemployment. At this point many of them just wish for a steady job, regardless of the pay. Many that tend to find jobs also encounter constant lay-offs before they could even get back on their feet. Currently the economy is in bad shape, just as it was in England when the vagrancy laws were established and in addition to that there are people that are able, ready and willing to work, even if it means to work at the local burger joint as a college graduate. It seems ironic how when there is a need for a certain type of law that’s when it never seems to be present and vice versa. England obviously felt that the vagrancy laws were the best way in improving their economy; however a law as such may not be the best way to resolve our economic issues today. That just may not be what the government feels will resolve our current economic issues; but if helping college students who are supposed to be leaders of the future, isn’t a way to resolve our economic issues, then what is?

It also seems that today the government could actually benefit from the assistance of religious organizations instead of alleviating the “houses of religion from economic hardship” as the vagrancy laws intended. Today, I hardly hear about religious organizations assisting those in in need as much as they have in the past. It seems as if the establishment of the vagrancy laws have made these religious organizations so detached from society that now their services are preserved for certain individuals in particular situations. But apparently this article shows that those that are in most need are actually those that are also the most capable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/since-recession-more-young-americans-are-homeless.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&adxnnlx=1355922364-FajS5bPahk9dmGlWpaZSDw

Instead of officers trying to assist the homeless they seem to be extremely busy arresting individuals at their own residence as discussed in the article below. NYC Police officers have been unlawfully and wrongfully arresting residents and their visitors for crimes that have now been acknowledged as blatant crimes. This article pertains to the vagrancy laws, because I’m sure the officers excuse for theses arrest were on the grounds that  they were “ properly directed towards the prevention of crime and the preservation of good order”, just as Chambliss described the vagrancy laws. However, as society changes laws change and society no longer tolerates such heinous actions to go unpunished, especially if there are many cases that prove the injustice within a specific institution. In this respect this article also relates to the desegregation of schools, as it took multiple cases to prove that these actions on behalf of the police department were immoral and unjust.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/nyregion/in-the-bronx-resistance-to-prosecuting-stop-and-frisk-arrests.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

A total contrast from the articles discussed above is one in which an officer actually goes out of his way to buy a homeless man a pair of shoes. Despite the stigma that comes with being homeless or a “beggar”, this article shows that there are some people that still have strong regard for humanity despite their economic status. This is not typical behavior for an officer, but it’s just funny how what was once prohibited no longer needs to be prohibited nor restricted because it’s a rare occurrence. Although vagrancy laws prohibited others from assisting beggars, and a more recent law was passed, as discussed in another post, which bans citizens from giving the homeless food, it doesn’t seem to hinder ones charitable nature to its entirety, as it intends to. I have come to notice that laws that are aimed to segregate, oppress and/or neglect a certain group of people, somewhere along the road tend to have the total opposite affect just as in the case of school segregation and the NYCH cases discussed in the above article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/nyregion/photo-of-officer-giving-boots-to-barefoot-man-warms-hearts-online.html?_r=0

Posted in News article/post/video | Leave a comment

Voting with your money

My article “Chick-fil-A fans and critics take to the streets” is about how the president of Chick Fil A publically announced that he did not support gays. He believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman because that’s how it is in the bible. This brings up a lot of issues considering LGBT is a very popular topic in America, someone people are completely for it and others are not. From there, other brands have started doing the same thing, for example, Wendys put up a sign saying that they provide service to everyone disregarding what their sexual orientation was.

Supporters of anti-homosexuality people have started eating at Chick-Fil-A. In a sense it’s like you’re voting with your money. If you agree with them you continue buying from them, if you don’t you boycott them. But the people who disagree with the Cathy’s words also show up to protest. They’ve also arranged Same Sex Kiss Day, outside its premises, which is exactly what it sounds like. It seems like people are having an argument without any actual violence. People who gather in front of his store definitely need to make the extra effort to get their point across. Because Dan Cathy has money, his voice is proportionate to his money. This follows through with the conflict theory, where law is a tool of the powerful. They’re using the freedom of speech argument, but he’s publicly bashing on a certain social group, which has little enough say already as it is.

What I’m surprised about reading this article is how he, or his company, hasn’t gotten sued yet. Although throughout the article it speaks about how important it is that they are allowed to have their freedom of speech, in a sense doesn’t it contradict other laws because it’s discriminating against a certain group of people? In Neilson’s reading, she discusses how people rather keep the first amendment around instead of being able to sue for street harassment and deal with the issues. I guess in a sense it makes sense why no one has sued yet, because they’d rather be able to hold onto their freedom of speech as much as they despise what Cathy has to say.

This also makes me think about to our policies on corporations. If a corporation does someone wrong, then you sue the corporations, you can’t sue an individual. Does that still apply? Although his opinions are not racist, I feel like it conveys the same type of damage. It’s attacking a certain social group, when they have not wronged him in any way. A lot of his supporters state that they’re there just because they like the food, and because they support the idea of freedom of speech. I feel like the freedom of speech is overlapped with another issues, and this is not the best place to advocate the freedom of speech. To me it seems like an issue of white supremacy, and the freedom of speech argument is just a cover-up so they do not seem like a homophobic person. I feel like the law needs to step in and make arrangements so that people can sue for sexual orientation discrimination.

My article: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/01/business/la-fi-chick-fil-a-day-20120802

Aside | Posted on by | Leave a comment

After Shooting, New Pressure on Thriving Gun Industry

With the recent shooting in Newtown, CT both members of the Republican and Democratic party are actively advocating for the restructure of gun laws. The fact that guns were so easily accessible to the shooter, Adam Lanza, and his mental illness state is being found as very disturbing to most members of society. Many stores have gone so far as to stop the sales of certain rifles, such as Dicks Sporting Goods and Wal-Mart. Interestingly enough, however, gun company shares have gone up as many people are going to purchase guns at an even faster rate because of the threat of stricter gun laws. “The White House had said Mr. Obama would seek stricter gun-control measures, including limits on high-capacity magazines, and would support efforts to prevent people from buying guns through unlicensed dealers without a background check.” For years, various groups have fought for stricter gun laws after the wake of drastic shootings, like in Aurora, CO. It is sad that it takes innocent children to fight for strict gun laws, but it is better that is happening at all and will hopefully prevent events like these from occurring again. While the ‘right to bear arms,’ is constitutional, after continuous mass shootings the US legal system should truly take actions to control and monitor gun purchases. I hope that with the revisions of gun laws, lawmakers look into making sure mentally disabled individuals in the household with guns should not be able to access firearms whatsoever, and maybe these households should not be allowed to keep such firearms in the home.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324677204578187852630553418.html?mod=WSJ_NY_MIDDLETopStories

Posted in News article/post/video | Leave a comment

Gay marriage before Supreme Court? Cases weighed

Just three weeks after Maryland and Washington state legalized gay marriage, the Supreme Court was set to decide whether or not they would hear on two influential same-sex marriage cases. The two cases that they decide to hear could be heard and decided as early as June of the upcoming year. The two states that legalized gay marriage now make up 13 states that have legalized it. However, there are 31 states that have amended their State constitutions to prohibit the legalization of gay marriage. The Supreme Court even trying these cases is monumental for the United States legal system, as it could set the national rule and possibly overturn the states that have already prohibited same-sex marriage.

The issue with this article is that it sets the tone that the Supreme Court justices should have the final rule on whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalized and it fails to question the rights of gay and/or lesbian groups. The article fails recognize the discrimination that members of the gay and lesbian community face as they are denied to marry who they love. This is of more concern because the institution of marriage truly isn’t based upon love but its historical reference actually stems from property ownership and the ownership of the wife to her new husband. With this said, it would suggest that the legal system denying Gay marriage is actually an issue because of property ownership and wealth containment.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP2803f5821d7a4def84129841b70e8c48.html?KEYWORDS=gay+marriage+washington+law

 

Posted in News article/post/video | Leave a comment

The Law Works For Protesters At Both National Conventions

At both parties, Democratic and Republican National Conventions there were police outside the centers to deal with the protesters or rioters of some sort. 

This year at the Republican convention in Florida, the law enforcers such as police and troops didn’t intervene with the protestors. In the New York Times article from August, Tampa police chief Jane Castor said: “We’re allowing people to express themselves in anyway, shape or form they think as long as it doesn’t cross over into criminal behavior.” Doesn’t the first amendment grant them that right? Why do police officers feel they have the power to give them freedom of expression? A lot of readings we discussed in class turn to the first amendment or democracy.Overrall, the protestors were very peaceful so there was a better turnout.

in the New York Times article from September, shows how the law act in a similar manner in Charlotte, N.C. Occupy wall street protestors went to Charlotte to protest. Police officers of Charlotte formed a barricade. Protestors were allowed to demonstrate or protest from the sidewalk. Although one person was arrested for breaching over the barricade it was peaceful. 

Even though the protest have made rules they still seem powerful.They set the rules on how people should protest or where they protest. Nielsen in “Discourses on Opposing Legal Regulation: Four Paradigms,”  said: “Those who fall into the First Amendment paradigm think of law, particularly the First Amendment as fair, just, and legitimate, despite occasional outcomes.”In both articles, there were few people arrested but no altercations and they were peaceful demonstrations so they were allowed their freedom of expression.

Republican Convention <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/us/politics/for-police-and-protesters-a-quieter-convention.html&gt;

Democratic Convention <http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/protest-outside-convention-leads-to-standoff-with-police/&gt;

 

Posted in News article/post/video | Leave a comment